Clark v. Volpe

461 F.2d 1266, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20459, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8518
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 1972
Docket72-1631
StatusPublished

This text of 461 F.2d 1266 (Clark v. Volpe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. Volpe, 461 F.2d 1266, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20459, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8518 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

461 F.2d 1266

2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,459

Albert CLARK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
John A. VOLPE, Secretary of Transportation of the United
States of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Boh Brothers Construction Co., Inc., the City of New
Orleans, Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 72-1631.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

July 10, 1972.

Richard M. Troy, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kent Frizzell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., John R. Schupp, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., George R. Hyde, Dirk D. Snel, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for Secretary of Transportation.

Norman L. Sisson, Robert J. Jones, Howard P. Elliott, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for Dept. of Highways of the State of La.

Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc., R. Emmett Kerrigan, Charles K. Reasonover, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

David S. Cressy, Deputy City Atty., New Orleans, La., for City of New Orleans.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GODBOLD and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a class action in which plaintiffs seek to enjoin the construction, already in progress when suit was filed, of Interstate Highway 610 through City Park in the City of New Orleans. Suit was filed February 24, 1972, and on March 21, 1972, after an evidentiary hearing confined to the issue of laches, the court dismissed the action by application of the doctrine of laches. Its reasons for judgment are set forth in 342 F.Supp. 1324.

The decision of the District Court must be, and is, affirmed. Ragland v. Mueller, 460 F.2d 1196 [5th Cir., 1972.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
461 F.2d 1266, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20459, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-volpe-ca5-1972.